In contrast with that architecture whose main concern is

the formalistic style a building shall wear, stands the ar

chitecture that we know as functionalism. The develop
ment of the functional idea and its expression in structures
are probably the most invigorating occurrences in archi
tectural activity in our time, and yet function in architec
tureand so also functionalismare not so very easy to
interpret precisely. Function is the characteristic use, or
work, or action of a thing. Function is also a thing or
quantity that depends upon, and varies with, another.
Functionalism the dictionaries boldly define as con
scious adaptation of form to useit is both less and more
than that, for truly it must recognize and reckon with both
of the meanings of function.
Architecture is a synthetic phenomenon covering prac
tically all fields of human activity. An object in the archi
tectural field may be functional from one point of view
and unfunctional from another. During the past decade,
modern architecture has been functional chiefly from the
technical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on the
economic side of the building activity. Such emphasis is
desirable, of course, for production of good shelters for the
human being has been a very expensive process as com
pared with the fulfillment of some other human needs.
Indeed, if architecture is to have a larger human value, the
first step is to organize its economic side. But, since ar
chitecture covers the entire field of human life, real func
tional architecture must be functional mainly from the hu
man point of view. If we look deeper into the processes of
human life, we shall discover that technique is only an aid,
not a definite and independent phenomenon therein. Tech
nical functionalism cannot create definite architecture.
If there were a way to develop architecture step by step,
beginning with the economic and technical aspect and
later covering the other more complicated human func
tions, then the purely technical functionalism would be
acceptable; but no such possibility exists. Architecture not
only covers all fields of human activity; it must even be
developed in all these fields at the same time. If not, we
shall have only one-sided, superficial results.
The term rationalism appears in connection with mod
ern architecture about as often as does functionalism.
Modern architecture has been rationalized mainly from the
technical point of view, in the same way as the technical
functions have been emphasized. Although the purely ra
tional period of modern architecture has created construc
tions where rationalized technique has been exaggerated
and the human functions have not been emphasized
enough, this is not a reason to fight rationalization in ar
chitecture. It is not the rationalization itself that was wrong
in the first and now past period of modern architecture.
The wrongness lies in the fact that the rationalization has
not gone deep enough. Instead of fighting rational mental
ity, the newest phase of modern architecture tries to project
rational methods from the technical field out to human and
psychological fields.
It might be well to have an example: One of the typical
activities in modern architecture has been the construction
of chairs and the adoption of new materials and new meth
ods for them. The tubular steel chair is surely rational from
technical and constructive points of view: It is light, suit
able for mass production, and so on. But steel and chro
mium surfaces are not satisfactory from the human point
of view. Steel is too good a conductor of heat. The chro
mium surface gives too bright reflections of light, and even
acoustically is not suitable for a room. The rational meth
ods of creating this furniture style have been on the right
track, but the result will be good only if rationalization is
exercised in the selection of materials which are most
suitable for human use.
The present phase of modern architecture is doubtless
a new one, with the special aim of solving problems in the
humanitarian and psychological fields. This new period,
however, is not in contradiction to the first period of tech
nical rationalization. Rather, it is to be understood as an
enlargement of rational methods to encompass related
fields.
During the past decades architecture has often been
compared with science, and there have been efforts to
make its methods more scientific, even efforts to make it
The Humanizing of Architecture
a pu
the s
of
pu rp
with
bett
I a rg
ac cc
ati or
a w
ham
Ar
o ne
can
can
it ca
of ir
Sc
in o
are
in ai
hos[
cial
vide
fro rr
man
fro rr
psyc
be i r
for
pati
with
lanc
the
roo
I a rg
Stuc
te rs
the
The term rationalism appears in connection with mod- a pure science. But architecture is not a science. It is still
In contrast with that architecture whose main concern is
the formalistic style a building shall wear, stands the ar
chitecture that we know as functionalism. The develop
ment of the functional idea and its expression in structures
are probably the most invigorating occLirrenceS in archi
tectural activity in our time, and yet function in architec
tureand so also functionalismare not so very easy to
interpret precisely. Function is the characteristic use, or
work, or action of a thing. Function is also a thing or
quantity that depends upon, and varies with, another.
Functionalism the dictionaries boldly define as con
scious adaptation of form to useit is both less and more
than that, for truly it must recognize and reckon with both
of the meanings of function.
Architecture is a synthetic phenomenon covering prac
tically all fields of human activity. An object in the archi
tectLiral field may be functional from one point of view
and unfunctional from another. During the past decade,
modern architecture has been functional chiefly from the
technical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on the
economic side of the building activity. Such emphasis is
desirable, of course, for production of good shelters for the
human being has been a very expensive process as com
pared with the fulfillment of some other human needs.
Indeed, if architecture is to have a larger human value, the
first step is to organize its economic side. But, since ar
chitecture covers the entire field of human life, real func
tional architecture must be functional mainly from the hu
man point of view. If we look deeper into the processes of
human life, we shall discover that technique is only an aid,
not a definite and independent phenomenon therein. Tech
nical functionalism cannot create definite architecture.
If there were a way to develop architecture step by step,
beginning with the economic and technical aspect and
later covering the other more complicated human func
tions, then the purely technical functionalism would be
acceptable; bLit no such possibility exists. Architecture not
only covers all fields of human activity; it must even be
developed in all these fields at the same time. If not, we
shall have only one-sided, superficial results.
em architecture about as often as does functionalism.
Modern architecture has been rationalized mainly from the
technical point of view, in the same way as the technical
functions have been emphasized. Although the purely ra
tional period of modern architecture has created construc
tions where rationalized technique has been exaggerated
and the human functions have not been emphasized
enough, this is not a reason to fight rationalization in ar
chitecture. It is not the rationalization itself that was wrong
in the first and now past period of modern architecture.
The wrongness lies in the fact that the rationalization has
not gone deep enough. Instead of fighting rational mental-
tv, the newest phase of modern architecture tries to project
rational methods from the technical field out to human and
psychological fields.
It might be well to have an example: One of the typical
activities in modern architecture has been the construction
of chairs and the adoption of new materials and new meth
ods for them. The tubular steel chair is surely rational from
technical and constructive points of view: it is light, suit
able for mass production, and so on. But steel and chro
mium surfaces are not satisfactory from the human point
of view. Steel is too good a conductor of heat. The chro
mium surface gives too bright reflections of light, and even
acoustically is not suitable for a room. The rational meth
ods of creating this furniture style have been on the right
track, but the result will be good only if rationalization is
exercised in the selection of materials which are most
suitable for human use.
The present phase of modern architecture is doubtless
a new one, with the special aim of solving problems in the
humanitarian and psychological fields. This new period,
however, is not in contradiction to the first period of tech
nical rationalization. Rather, it is to be understood as an
enlargement of rational methods to encompass related
fields.
During the past decades architecture has often been
compared with science, and there have been efforts to
make its methods more scientific, even efforts to make it
the same great synthetic process of combining thousands
of definite human functions, and remains architecture. Its
purpose is still to bring the material world into harmony
with human life. To make architecture more human means
better architecture, and it means a functionalism much
larger than the merely technical one. This goal can be
accomplished only by arch itectural methodsby the cre
ation and combination of different technical things in such
a way that they will provide for the human being the most
harmonious life.
ArchitectLiral methods sometimes resemble scientific
ones, and a process of research, such as science employs,
can be adopted also in architecture. Architectural research
can he more and more methodical, but the substance of
it can never be solely analytical. Always there will be more
of instinct and art in architectural research.
Scientists very often use exaggerated forms in analyses
in order to obtain clearer, more visible resultsbacteria
are stained, and so on. The same methods can be adopted
in architecture, also. I have had personal experience with
hospital buildings where I was able to discover that espe
cial physical and psychological reactions by patients pro
vided good pointers for ordinary housing. If we proceed
from technical functionalism, we shall discover that a great
many things in our present architecture are unfunctional
from the point of view of psychology or a combination of
psychology and physiology. To examine how human
beings react to forms and construction, it is useful to use
for experimentation especially sensitive persons, such as
patients in a sanatorium.
Experiments of this kind were performed in connection
with the Paimio Tuberculosis Sanatorium building in Fin
land and were carried on mainly in two special fields: (1)
the relation between the single human being and his living
room; (2) the protection of the single human being against
large groups ofpeople and the pressure from collectivity.
Study of the relation between the individual and his quar
ters involved the use of experimental rooms and covered
the questions of room form, colors, natural and artificial
77
light, heating system, noise, and so on. This first experiment
dealt with a person in the weakest possible condition, a
bed patient. One of the special results discovered was the
necessity for changing the colors in the room. In many
other ways, the experiment showed, the room must be
different from the ordinary room. This difference can be
explained thus: The ordinary room is a room for a vertical
person; a patients room is a room for a horizontal human
being, and colors, lighting, heating, and so on must be
designed with that in mind.
Practically, this fact means that the ceiling should be
darker, with an especially selected color suitable to be the
only view of the reclining patient for weeks and weeks.
The artificial light cannot come from an ordinary ceiling
fixture, but the principal center of light should be beyond
the angle of vision of the patient. For the heating system
in the experimental room, ceiling radiators were used but
in a way which threw the heat mainly at the foot of the
bed so that the head of the patient was outside the direct
78 heat rays. The location of the windows and doors likewise
took into account the patients position. To avoid noise,
one wall in the room was sound absorbing, and wash
basins (each patient in the two-patient rooms had his own)
were especially designed so that the flow of water from the
faucet hit the porcelain basin always at a very small angle
and worked noiselessly.
These are only a few illustrations from an experimental
room at the sanatorium, and they are here mentioned
merely as examples of architectural methods, which al
ways are a combination of technical, physical, and psy
chological phenomena, never any one of them alone.
Technical functionalism is correct only if enlarged to cover
even the psychophysical field. That is the only way to
humanize architecture.
Flexible wooden furniture is a result of experiments also
made at the Paimio Sanatorium. At the time of those ex
periments the first tubular chromium furniture was just
being constructed in Europe. Tubular and chromium sur
faces are good solutions technically, but psychophysically
these materials are not good for the human being. The
sanatorium needed furniture that should be light, flexible,
easy to clean, and so on. After extensive experimentation
in wood, the flexible system was discovered and a method
and material combined to produce furniture that was better
for the human touch and more suitable as the general
material for the long and painful life in a sanatorium.
The main problem connected with a library is that of the
human eye. A library can be well constructed and can be
functional in a technical way even without the solving of
this problem, but it is not humanly and architecturally
complete unless it deals satisfactorily with the main human
function in the building, that of reading a book. The eye
is only a tiny part of the human body, but it is the most
sensitive and perhaps the most important part. To provide
a natural or an artificial light that destroys the human eye
or that is unsuitable for its use, means reactionary arch i
tecture even if the building should otherwise be of high
constructive value.
Daylight through ordinary windows, even if they are
very large, covers only a part of a big room. Even if the
room is lighted sufficiently, the light will be uneven and
will vary on different points of the floor. That is why sky
lights have mainly been used in libraries, museums, and
so on. But skylight, which covers the entire floor area,
gives an exaggerated light, if extensive additional arrange
ments are not made. In the library building the problem
was solved with the aid of numerous round skylights so
constructed that the light could be termed indirect daylight.
The round skylights are technically rational because of the
monopiece glass system employed. (Every skylight consists
of a conical concrete basement six feet in diameter, and
a thick jointless round piece of glass on top of it without
any frame construction.) This system is humanly rational
because it provides a kind of light suitable for reading,
blended and softened by being reflected from the conical
surfaces of the skylights. In Finland the largest angle of
sunlight is almost 52 degrees. The concrete cones are so
constructed that the sunlight always remains indirect. The
surfaces of the cones spread the light in millions of direc
tions. Theoretically, for instance, the light reaches an open
book from all these different directis and thus avoids a
reflection to the human eye from the white page of the
book. (Bright reflection from book pages is one of the most
fatiguing phenomena in reading.) In the same way this
lighting system eliminates shadow phenomena regardless
of the position of the reader. The problem of reading a
book is more than a problem of the eye; a good reading
light permits the use of many positions of the human body
and every suitable relation between book and eye. Reading
a book involves both culturally and physically a strange
kind of concentration; the duty of architecture is to elimi
nate all disturbing elements.
It is possible in a scientific way to ascertain what kinds
and what quantities of light are ideally the most suitable
for the human eye, but in constructing a room the solution
must be made with the aid of all the different elements that
architecture embraces. Here the skylight system is a com
bined product of the ceiling construction (a room almost
sixty feet wide needs a ceiling construction with beams
high enough for the erection of the deep cones) and special
technical limits in horizontal glass construction. An archi
tectural solution must always have a human motive based
on analysis, but that motive has to be materialized in
construction that probably is a result of extraneous circum
stances. The examples mentioned here are very tiny prob
lems. But they are very close to the human being and
hence become more important than problems of much
larger scope.
The Humanizing of Architecture, Technology Review, 1940
ent sanatorium needed furniture that should be light, flexible,
easy to clean, and so on. After extensive experimentation
ie in wood, the flexible system was discovered and a method
and material combined to produce furniture that was better
for the human touch and more suitable as the general
material for the long and painful life in a sanatorium.
:al The main problem connected with a library is that of the
an human eye. A library can be well constructed and can be
functional in a technical way even without the solving of
this problem, but it is not humanly and architecturally
complete unless it deals satisfactorily with the main human
he function in the building, that of reading a book. The eye
is only a tiny part of the human body, but it is the most
;
sensitive and perhaps the most important part. To provide
a natural or an artificial light that destroys the human eye
1 or that is unsuitable for its use, means reactionary archi
ut tecture even if the building should otherwise be of high
constructive value.
:t Daylight through ordinary windows, even if they are
ise very large, covers only a part of a big room. Even if the
room is lighted sufficiently, the light will be uneven and
will vary on different points of the floor. That is why sky
A/n) lights have mainly been used in libraries, museums, and
he so on. But skylight, which covers the entire floor area,
le gives an exaggerated light, if extensive additional arrange
ments are not made. In the library building the problem
al was solved with the aid of numerous round skylights so
constructed that the light could be termed indirect daylight.
The round skylights are technically rational because of the
-
monopiece glass system employed. (Every skylight consists
of a conical concrete basement six feet in diameter, and
ier a thick jointless round piece of glass on top of it without
any frame construction.) This system is humanly rational
because it provides a kind of light suitable for reading,
Ilso blended and softened by being reflected from the conical
surfaces of the skylights. In Finland the largest angle of
sunlight is almost 52 degrees. The concrete cones are so
ir- constructed that the sunlight always remains indirect. The
ally surfaces of the cones spread the light in millions of direc
tions. Theoretically, for instance, the light reaches an open
book from all these different directiohs and thus avoids a
reflection to the human eye from the white page of the
book. (Bright reflection from book pages is one of the most
fatiguing phenomena in reading.) In the same way this
lighting system eliminates shadow phenomena regardless
of the position of the reader. The problem of reading a
book is more than a problem of the eye; a good reading
light permits the use of many positions of the human body
and every suitable relation between book and eye. Reading
a book involves both culturally and physically a strange
kind of concentration; the duty of architecture is to elimi
nate all disturbing elements.
It is possible in a scientific way to ascertain what kinds
and what quantities of light are ideally the most suitable
for the human eye, but in constructing a room the solution
must be made with the aid of all the different elements that
architecture embraces. Here the skylight system is a com
bined product of the ceiling construction (a room almost
sixty feet wide needs a ceiling construction with beams
high enough for the erection of the deep cones) and special
technical limits in horizontal glass construction. An arch i
tectural solution must always have a human motive based
on analysis, but that motive has to be materialized in
construction that probably is a result of extraneous circum
stances. The examples mentioned here are very tiny prob
lems. But they are very close to the human being and
hence become more important than problems of much
larger scope.
The Humanizing of Architecture, Technology Review, 1940
79